Though I would genuinely like to hear more about your reasons for that judgement. And maybe the more precise description. ;)

Fair enough with regard to my own newfound phobia of wishful thoughts. But I stand by my polite description of some sources for anti-white House stories as mixing their own wishful thoughts with facts. If pressed, I’ll give you the more precise but impolite desription.

“In announcing the Tony Snow appointment today Bush again stressed how he “decides†things and Snow’s job will be to explain Bush’s decisions to the press. I have to think that all this new “deciding†language is to try to create the impression of Bush in contol…….. as Rove/Cheney (or both) take a fall.”

Ggreat observation!!! Every sane person knows that Bush is simply the glittery wrapping paper on a big box of dung- the box of dung (and real decider) being Cheney.

I think you are on to something, lmnurker!

Comin’ in late to this party, but whatevah.

That is a wonderful graphic or Karl being hustled away. But is it an example of frogmarching or of a perp walk?

Well, it depends on whether you are old-fashioned, or new-fashioned. The term “frogmarched†has been in use since the middle of the 19th century, and describes a suspect or perpetrator being led away by police in the following manner:

FROGMARCH verb [mid-19th century and still in use] to carry someone face down, one person holding onto each limb; used on drunks or recalcitrant prisoners. …

From this definition, you get the image of someone with all four limbs spread out, resembling a frog. Clearly this is not what is happening in this graphic.

Nowdays, the term “frogmarch†has been relaxed to the extent that dragging a perp by the arms and walking him off on his own two feet can be called “frogmarching.†A verbal purist might consider that a corruption of the term. The common element in the two usages is that the perp is being taken away under force, not walking leisurely at his own pace.

In the era of OJ, Enron, and Martha Stewart, however, the term of choice is often the “perp walk†which specifically refers to hustling off a noteworthy or famous person to jail in the presence of the press and under the glare of cameras.

“Perp walks” — leading a suspect in handcuffs past still and video cameras — serve several legitimate government purposes when they are not staged solely for the press, a federal appeals court recently held.

In the case of Karl Rove, when it happens, I don’t care whether it is called “frogmarching†or “perp walking.†My only response would be: “It’s about fucking time..â€

http://online.wsj.com/public/a…..?mod=blogs

I looked and saw that Fitz met with the grand jury on
a Wednesday 10/26 (corrected) and announced Libby’s indictment on that Friday (10/28) Can’t find the link yet but google it. It’s there.
Not sure if Libby testified on Wednesday but the article said he was curiously absent at a staff meeting (which Rove attended) that day. The reason was given that he wasn’t at the meeting because he was off with Cheney getting briefed on security issues.
I’m not kidding.
I’ll continue to find the link.

Hope this helps and everybody pray.
This could be a good weekend!

On the other hand, from the defense side, I have seen fed prosecutors in action concerning NYC related “politically related” prosecutions, and in that instance I would say that they, at times, overstepped their authority in their zealousness for conviction, acted outside the rules, having nothing to do with discretion (or civility?).

In Watergate, the preznit himself did that “tapping” so that isn’t really a good example.

I have no clue whether anyone is or is not being tapped or is or is not wired, I just wouldn’t base a conclusion based on alleged civility on Fitz’ part. I have no doubt he is civil and courteous and all those other things, and to me, those character traits have nothing to do with using tools that might be legally and properly available to the prosecutor.

Then again, you may have me on that White House thing.

latest odds:

Rove indicted: 1:5
Cheney indicted: 3:2
Bush impeached: 7:1
Bush convicted: 18:1
Luskin lying: 2:7
Rove turning state’s evidence: 4:1
Scott McMuffin telling all: 10:1
Tweety flying back to host hardball: even
Norah bitch-slapping him: 3:1
David Shuster winning Pullitzer: 1:4
Tony Snow quitting after one month: 2:5
Patrick Fitgerald sends grand jury home with no further indictments: 100:1
Abramhoff and Rove cellmates: 5,000:1
Judith Miller winnning Pullitzer: NL
Osama bin laden caught and placed in confinement with Rove, Abramhoff, Libby, Cheney, Bush, DeLay Saddam Hussein, Duke Cunningham,the Duke Lacrosse team and the real murderers of Natalie Holloway: About the same as winning the Powerball and a much richer fantasy for the money.